Russia "doesn't exclude" the possibility of supporting a UN resolution against Syria

Apparently Putin may be setting the stage for a way to relent on the UN sanctions, if the evidence is indisputable. UN approval could possibly change the whole situation for us if we ultimately end up going into Syria.

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has warned the US against taking one-sided action in Syria, but has also said that Russia "doesn't exclude" the possibility of supporting a UN resolution authorising military strikes.

He says that such an endorsement would require "convincing" evidence that President Bashar al-Assad's government used chemical weapons against citizens.

He also says the currently available evidence does not fulfill this criteria.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Associated Press news agency and Russia's state Channel 1 television, Putin said it would be "absolutely absurd" for Assad's forces to have used chemical weapons at a time when they were in the ascendency in the conflict.

...

If there was clear proof of what weapons were used and who used them, Russia "will be ready to act in the most decisive and serious way," Putin said.
...

1. UN is more important than many think.

I think too many Americans fail to understand how important UN really is, maybe not to them, but to most other countries. There are lots of European leaders that would change their minds, if strong evidence were made available through UN. It doesn't matter that American agencies already believe they have strong evidence, because here (in Europe) they have close to zero credibility. In fact, even for right-wing politicians it would be a political suicide to directly refer to American sources, without having anything from either it's own country or UN. The evidence provided by Kerry might have value in America, but not elsewhere. Having an American president say "look... here is the evidence... trust us" is just an insult to many Europeans.

4. I agree.

Both about the UN's importance in a matter like this, and the US government's credibility problem. There is so much money and corruption involved in government now, that we Americans too have to constantly "read between the lines" to figure out what is really going on.

Although I believe the attack happened and I think it's extremely likely that Assad did it, I will be very interested in the UN's objective analysis of what evidence it found.

Apparently Putin is too. Maybe he already knows that it will be too conclusive for him to plausibly stonewall, and is "hedging his bets". It reads as if he wants to create another option for himself, in case ones is needed. Just a guess, we'll see. I thought it was very interesting that he included these little comments in his interview though.

7. Yes...

It's a rather surprising opening from Putin's side. Maybe the point is to ease tensions before the G20 meeting, so that discussions can be as frank as possible. I think that even if Putin likes to preserve a friendly, but corrupt, Assad regime in Syria for the sake of influence and stability, he's seriously worried about the possible use of chemical weapons. Russia has had her own problems with terrorists and have probably been productive in her collaborations with America on anti-terrorism.

6. My views change if the US doesn't act unilaterally

My objection to military involvement in Syria, is predicated on the idea that if we go it alone, we make things worse. An international response, lessens blowback to the US, and does a much better job of showing condemnation for violating the chemical weapons ban.